7 , 


Calendar No. 119. 


63d Congress, ) 

SENATE. 

J Report 

2d Session. ( 


1 No. 147. 


AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. 


January 13, 1914.—Ordered to be printed. 


Mr. Sutherland, from the^Committee on the Judiciary, submitted 

the following 

ADVERSE REPORT. 

[To accompany S. J. Res. 26.] ' 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred Senate 
joint resolution 26, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, having considered the same, beg leave to report 
the same with the recommendation that it do not pass. 

o 


[ 









N 

V 

t 

M 

V 


\ 


/ 


« 


> 




D. OF D, 

may 22 )914 

' » 


4 






« 


•< 


« 




« 

% 


Jt %■ 


\ 


4 

t 


I 


Calendar No. 119. 


63d Congress. 


SENATE. 


j Kept. 

I Part 


147. 

2 . ' 


M Session, 


AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. 


February 5, 1914.—Ordered to be printed. 



Mr. Cummins (for himself and Messrs. Ashurst, Walsh, Borah, 
Nelson, Overman, and Chilton), from the Committee on the 
Judiciary, submitted the following 


VIEWS. 


I To accompany S. J. Res. 20. J 


Views of Senators Cummins and Ashurst. 


The undersigned Senators, being a minority of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, beg to submit their views upon Senate joint reso¬ 
lution 26, which has been reported adversely by the majority of the 
committee. 

Aside from the provision for a constitutional convention, which 
is practically of no avail, amendments to the Constitution must be 
initiated by Congress by a two-thirds vote of each House. No mat¬ 
ter how generally the people desire a change in their organic law, 
they are powerless unless Congress, burdened as it is with a load 
of legislation and hampered with its variety of interests, has the 
inclination to adopt the resolution necessary for the submission of 
the proposed amendment. A constitution ought to be the direct 
declaration of the people rather than the declaration of a legislative 
body representing the people. A constitution controls legislation,- 
and it seems illogical to subject it to the judgment of the legislature 
it is to govern. The people should be able to initiate amendments 
to State constitutions which are limitations upon power, and much 
more should they be able to initiate amendments to the Federal Con¬ 
stitution, which is a grant of power. 

The members of the committee who sign these views are not in en¬ 
tire agi'eement with i-espect to all parts of the resolution. Some of 
them are of the opinion that the legislatures of a reasonable number 
of the States should have the idght to require the submission of an 
amendment, and that it is not wise to extend the right to primary 
voters to be exercised through petition. Others believe that the right 
of initiation should be given not only to State legislatures but also 










2 amendment to the constitution. 

to the voters under proper restrictions. They are, however, of one 
mind in this, that there should be submitted to the htates tor ap¬ 
proval or rejection an amendment providing that either a proportion 
of the States or a proportion of the people, or both, should have the 
power to initiate amendments to our Constitution. 

Kespectfully submitted. ^ 

Albert B. Cummins. 
Henry F. Asuurst. 


Views of Senators Walsh and Borah. 


While differing from some of the conclusions and principles as¬ 
serted in the foregoing, I am in favor of an amendment to the Con¬ 
stitution permitting it to be amended on conditions much less onerous i 
than those imposed by the Convention of 1787, and accordingly join in 
opposing the report of the committee. 1 

T. J. Walsh. P 

Wm. E. Borah. j 


Views of Senators Nelson and Oa’^erman. 


I am in favor of so much of the resolution as permits the legisla¬ 
tures of the several States to propose amendments. 


Knute Nelson. 
Lee S. Overman. 


Views of Senator Chilton. 

The merits of the proposed amendment are many. 

It is not strange that the States as well as the people thereof 
should find that a Constitution adopted in 1789 needs amendment 
now; nor is there cause for wonder that they feel that the existing 
method of making such amendments is cumbersome. The first 
gaunlet to be run is the Congress, where the amendment must receive 
two-thirds majority in both branches before it can be submitted to 
the people. Under the rules of the Senate one-third of the member¬ 
ship has the power to prolong a debate indefinitely. Thirty-two 
Members (one-third of the Senate’s membership) can delay and 
debate a resolution to amend the Constitution indefinitely; therefore 
it is in the power of one-third of the Senate, even a less number, in 
fact, to prevent the submission of an amendment. I think, therefore, 
that to give a reasonable number of States the power to submit an 
amendment for ratification is wise and is demanded by the present 
situation. 

I think the limit of time within which the States may ratify is 
justified by sound principles. It is altogether proper that a proposed 
amendment, after the lapse of five years, should die, unless ratified. 
The submission of a proposed amendment to the people of the States, 
if the legislatures desire to do so, can not be objectionable, and no 
doubt that, with present conditions, habits of thought, and experience 
before them, the original .convention would have adopted that plan. 
Anything which facilitates the expression of the people’s will appeals 
to me. 


a. m 1), 

1914 




AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. 


3 ^ 


The resolution does not abolish the present method of amending 
the Constitution. It adds another method, and would be used, prob¬ 
ably, only in those instances where the people demanded the sub¬ 
mission of the amendment and tired of the delays of Congress. By 
either method the same solemnity for ratification is required. 

W. E. Chilton. 


o 





. nar ff. 


ia>v--iijrt-^ 0 028 001 668 8 


mm •' 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



-^KO^riiO 






”‘f 










- ^:.‘v^'^-■■■*^r '*■' 


4 


n 






